Re Jarman; Ex parte Cook

The High Court of Australia considered an application by the Prosecutor seeking the issue of prerogative writs of certiorari and mandamus directed to a Judge of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia. The Prosecutor sought to challenge a decision made by that Judge. The central question was whether the High Court had the power to remit this application to the Industrial Relations Court of Australia under section 44 of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the Industrial Relations Court of Australia possessed the jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs against one of its own judges sitting in that court. Ancillary to this, the Court had to determine if section 44 of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth) provided a mechanism for the High Court to remit such an application to the Industrial Relations Court, given the latter's potential lack of jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

The High Court concluded that the Industrial Relations Court of Australia did not have the power to issue prerogative writs against a judge of that court. Consequently, the High Court held that it lacked the power under section 44 of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth) to remit the Prosecutor's application to the Industrial Relations Court, as there was no competent court to which the matter could be remitted for the determination of the prerogative writ application.

The High Court declared that it did not have the power under section 44 of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth) to remit the application to the Industrial Relations Court of Australia. The Court also ordered that, in the absence of agreement on costs, the Prosecutor, Second Respondent, Third Respondent, and Fourth Respondent were to file written submissions within 21 days regarding the appropriate order for costs, including any reserved costs.